Rapiscan accused of faking privacy tests for airport scanners

Firm struggles to write software to blur passengers' naughty bits.

An influential member of Congress has suggested that Rapiscan, the company behind some of the full-body scanners used at American airports, faked tests of its machines' ability to protect passenger privacy. In a letter quoted by Bloomberg, Rep Mike Rogers (R-AL) charged that Rapiscan "may have attempted to defraud the government by knowingly manipulating an operational test."

The TSA uses two different types of full-body scanners in the nation's airports: backscatter machines and millimeter-wave machines. The former are manufactured by Rapiscan, and the TSA has spent $40 million on those machines to date.

Rogers chairs the House Transportation Security Subcommittee, and he held hearings Thursday to scrutinize the use of the machines.

Bloomberg says Rapiscan "has been trying, without success, to write software that would display a generic image" when a passenger is scanned by its machines. The TSA has been forced to put 91 of the machines, worth $14 million, in storage until Rapiscan gets its privacy software working properly.

Ironically, that move has improved the efficiency of TSA operations. According to USA Today, Rapiscan machines were taken out of service in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, Charlotte, and Orlando. As a result, TSA representative John Sanders told Rogers's committee, the same number of lines can now process an additional 180,000 more passengers per day.

One reason traditional metal detectors are more efficient than body scanners is that privacy concerns forced the TSA to display the machines' output in a separate room. The agent in the separate room communicates with her colleague by radio if a passenger requires more scrutiny.

Rogers says he learned of the manipulation of the privacy tests from an anonymous source, but Rapiscan denies the charges. Sanders said the TSA didn't have any evidence to support the charges.

“At this point we don’t know what has occurred,” he told the committee. “We are in contact with the vendor. We are working with them to get to the bottom of it.”

The TSA is also under fire from the privacy group EPIC, which has sued to force the TSA to go through a traditional rulemaking process to justify the use of the full-body scanners.

Remember the old Ars thread where some newly-created account went on a rant about how "we" tested them thoroughly and "they" didn't understand how "our" technology works? Then as soon as someone called him out on those pronouns, he disappeared?

Before deploying such equipment, it should be the job of TSA and/or the company to post videos or supporting material demonstrating that their technology works.And on a side note, Rapiscan, seriously? Couldn't they have come up with a better name?

Before deploying such equipment, it should be the job of TSA and/or the company to post videos or supporting material demonstrating that their technology works.And on a side note, Rapiscan, seriously? Couldn't they have come up with a better name?

FreePornMakerForGoons-o-scope was trademarked, and so was FucktheBillofRights-o-tron.

I've ran across them in a few airports over the last couple years and about half the time they are out of service because they've broken down. On the occasions where they have worked and my line was headed for them I've chosen to opt out. I've got no issues with the millimeter wave scanners but I won't be a guinea pig for these backscatter devices. I don't trust the company to operate them safely. They sure don't speed up the process that's for sure!

As a matter of principle, I always opt-out while flying. Regardless of the technology used, I'd rather undergo multiple monthly pat-downs than subject myself to being seen naked, or be exposed to various types of untested radiation.

While traveling home yesterday, I noted that the TSA official didn't do as thorough a job as usual - on my legs, he stopped halfway between my knee and crotch, and barley brushed the rest. After the pat-down, I requested to speak to the supervisor, and proceeded to lodge a complaint that the groping wasn't sufficient.

The supervisor looked startled (think deer-in-headlights), and quite confused. I may be the first passenger ever to complain that the TSA didn't touch their junk enough. I explained that if I was forced to undergo such security theater while traveling, they should at least do a proper job of it.

I pointed out that I could have been concealing a weapon between my legs -- for a minute, I though she was going to call the troops and have me dragged off to a cell. I quickly stated that I was not making a threat, just an observation on the slip-shod quaility of their procedures. Fortunately, she let me proceed to my delayed flight.

Personally, I'm against privacy-enhancing image processing. I'd rather have people concerned about government invasions of their privacy, than pretend it's not such a big deal to be virtually strip-seached because only a computer ever sees one's junk.

As a matter of principle, I always opt-out while flying. Regardless of the technology used, I'd rather undergo multiple monthly pat-downs than subject myself to being seen naked, or be exposed to various types of untested radiation.

While traveling home yesterday, I noted that the TSA official didn't do as thorough a job as usual - on my legs, he stopped halfway between my knee and crotch, and barley brushed the rest. After the pat-down, I requested to speak to the supervisor, and proceeded to lodge a complaint that the groping wasn't sufficient.

The supervisor looked startled (think deer-in-headlights), and quite confused. I may be the first passenger ever to complain that the TSA didn't touch their junk enough. I explained that if I was forced to undergo such security theater while traveling, they should at least do a proper job of it.

I pointed out that I could have been concealing a weapon between my legs -- for a minute, I though she was going to call the troops and have me dragged off to a cell. I quickly stated that I was not making a threat, just an observation on the slip-shod quaility of their procedures. Fortunately, she let me proceed to my delayed flight.

Personally, I'm against privacy-enhancing image processing. I'd rather have people concerned about government invasions of their privacy, than pretend it's not such a big deal to be virtually strip-seached because only a computer ever sees one's junk.

Your anecdote leads me to think that the primary reason more people don't protest the TSA in situ is that everybody is afraid to be hassled and miss their flights. The TSA counts on this, and uses the (unstated, mostly) threat of temporary detention as a weapon in order to keep people orderly. This, most circularly, leads the TSA leadership to think that most people are just fine with the way things are, since, hey, they shuffle through the lines like good little boys and girls. Ugh.

People on frequent flyer forums commonly refer to this thing as the Nude-O-Scope, so this is not really surprising. Looks like they're even selling them on ebay now. Maybe that's what the TSA is doing with the ones they took out of service?

After the pat-down, I requested to speak to the supervisor, and proceeded to lodge a complaint that the groping wasn't sufficient.

The supervisor looked startled (think deer-in-headlights), and quite confused. I may be the first passenger ever to complain that the TSA didn't touch their junk enough. I explained that if I was forced to undergo such security theater while traveling, they should at least do a proper job of it.

Probably the groper was intimated by your plainly very large pair.

I've noted the same thing in my pat downs at LAX (I always opt out for the same reasons). My reaction is similar to yours, although I did not follow through in the admirable manner you did.

Yeah, what a waste of money for these machines, not to mention privacy rights.

I've taken about 8 or 9 flights since they came out with these machines, and on the last one I finally got asked to submit to the machine, and I politely opted out. All the earlier ones were just the normal metal detectors. The pat down wasn't bad at all, really--not invasive by any stretch. I realize it probably depends on where you're flying through and what the mood of the TSA Agent happens to be at the moment (believe me, I've read the horror stories), but I never plan to go through one of the scanners.

As a matter of principle, I always opt-out while flying. Regardless of the technology used, I'd rather undergo multiple monthly pat-downs than subject myself to being seen naked, or be exposed to various types of untested radiation.

While traveling home yesterday, I noted that the TSA official didn't do as thorough a job as usual - on my legs, he stopped halfway between my knee and crotch, and barley brushed the rest. After the pat-down, I requested to speak to the supervisor, and proceeded to lodge a complaint that the groping wasn't sufficient.

The supervisor looked startled (think deer-in-headlights), and quite confused. I may be the first passenger ever to complain that the TSA didn't touch their junk enough. I explained that if I was forced to undergo such security theater while traveling, they should at least do a proper job of it.

I pointed out that I could have been concealing a weapon between my legs -- for a minute, I though she was going to call the troops and have me dragged off to a cell. I quickly stated that I was not making a threat, just an observation on the slip-shod quaility of their procedures. Fortunately, she let me proceed to my delayed flight.

Personally, I'm against privacy-enhancing image processing. I'd rather have people concerned about government invasions of their privacy, than pretend it's not such a big deal to be virtually strip-seached because only a computer ever sees one's junk.

Your anecdote leads me to think that the primary reason more people don't protest the TSA in situ is that everybody is afraid to be hassled and miss their flights. The TSA counts on this, and uses the (unstated, mostly) threat of temporary detention as a weapon in order to keep people orderly. This, most circularly, leads the TSA leadership to think that most people are just fine with the way things are, since, hey, they shuffle through the lines like good little boys and girls. Ugh.

I've protested numerous ways over the years - direct complaints to employees and supervisors, comments on how the TSA screener could find better work which did not involve violating citizen's constitutional rights, shouting about how they were touching my junk, and with slightly offensive/borderline homosexual comments about how I was getting turned on (I'm quite straight, BTW). None have been effective. Now, I'm simply trying to gum up the works, taking as many employees away from the "normals" for as long as possible.

I've never missed a flight because of screening procedures, but I step close to the line as often as possible. Maybe, I'll cross the line one of these days, but given that I travel for work (and have kids waiting at home), it's not often that I have the liberty to push things that far.

As someone who works in a radiation-related industry, the backscatter machines are an abomination.

They produce and operate by using x-rays, yet the operators do not wear dosimeters, the machines are not calibrated or commissioned on-site in any public way (information on calibration and dose should be available to patients--- errr, victims? travelers?), and there are no dosimetric checks in the surrounding area or environment.

While in theory the doses may be so low as to be safe, without any standardized testing, who is to say what is really going on?

Dosimeters are required by law for radiation workers. And the allowable doses for non-classified-as-radiation-workers are even lower.

The TSA lies and makes things up about this. They claimed, officially, for years, that dosimeters were not necessary because the radiation levels were "too low." However, they banned their employees from wearing dosimeters. If the levels are low, shouldn't they be wearing dosimeters to prove as much?

The only reason to officially prevent your employees from seeing how much radiation they are receiving is if, in fact, you are concerned that the levels may not be quite what you are asserting they are.

Quote:

Q: Why aren’t your officers permitted to wear dosimeters?

A: There is a really good reason for this. The emissions from our X-ray technology are well below the requirements that would require their routine usage.

Personal dosimeters measure exactly how much radiation a person receives, so the levels can be compared with the limits set by the government.

Experts today expressed surprise that such devices, which are required by law for anyone who works with radiation, were not already used by airport screeners.

"I wouldn’t dream of them not having that already," said Dr. Nagy Elsayyad, a radiation oncologist at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. "They really should have some form of monitoring device," Elsayyad said.

"By any possible definition, they are radiation workers," said David Brenner, director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.

Note also that the machines are not monitored or tested on site. They are "spot checked" perhaps once a year. The testing for safety was not done on the machines being used, but instead on prototypes in a university setting. In the real world, things break.

One reason traditional metal detectors are more efficient than body scanners is that privacy concerns forced the TSA to display the machines' output in a separate room. The agent in the separate room communicates with her colleague by radio if a passenger requires more scrutiny.

I think the real reason that the lines are faster without these machines is the way they use them. With a normal metal scanner, most people understand that metal may trigger a false alarm, so they take, say, their keys out of their pocket beforehand. But with the full-body scanners, the TSA insists that you take everything out of your pocket, including every scrap of paper, handkerchiefs, etc.. Emptying four pockets and trying to make sure you don't lose anything takes much more time than just taking out your keys. This is clearly not because my cloth handkerchief causes a false alarm. In fact, as far as I can tell the TSA doesn't use these machines at all to scan for threats, but just to scan whether you have something (anything) in your pockets.

Before deploying such equipment, it should be the job of TSA and/or the company to post videos or supporting material demonstrating that their technology works.And on a side note, Rapiscan, seriously? Couldn't they have come up with a better name?

it is rather unfortunately named, but I suspect they didn't realize the way it would be perceived ny the public. They night well have had other ideas in mind when they initially designed and named the machines.

goglen,I suspect people view it a bit differently when a trained medical professional touches them or sees them makes and some pseudo-cop does. Also, a patient is going to consent to being touched and/or seen nude. Also, I think doctors take classes on appropriate behavior while TSA agents don't do anything close to the same extent furthermore, when a doctor is examining you, the effect is to try and save you from horrible illness, while when an agent examines you, it its (to the traveler) to hold up the progress of getting on your flight.

Wow. Given all the free porn on the internet, and how scantily-clad people are at the beach (including many you wish were not), I find that I cannot comprehend the strong resistance to what should, as they mature, make security scans extremely fast.

{snip}

1. TSA workers are not medical professionals. In fact, using the words "TSA" and "professional" together is an oxymoron.

2. It has far less to do with "OMG they can see me nekkid!" and far more to do with "OMG I'm being needlessly bombarded by x-rays in a manner that medical professionals consider to be of questionable safety, on machines that aren't even being routinely monitored to ensure that they're in good working order (see above comments about dosimeters).

I'd just like to see the TSA agents have to go through the machines every shift. After all, they're "on the front lines of freedom," or some such blarf. Don't we need to be sure they're not smuggling drugs/guns/bottled water into the "secure" areas of the airport?

Gas Chromatography - Mass Spectroscopy is a pretty advanced technique right now. Make a person walk through an enclosure, analyze against known explosives, and you can have both security and privacy simultaneously. It's expensive, but at $230,000 a pop, these scanners ain't cheap either.

Gas Chromatography - Mass Spectroscopy is a pretty advanced technique right now. Make a person walk through an enclosure, analyze against known explosives, and you can have both security and privacy simultaneously. It's expensive, but at $230,000 a pop, these scanners ain't cheap either.

The real threat in the airport is the workers who aren't security. I worked at a restaurant in the airport past security. The first 10 days on the job I worked I had no security clearance. My employers would have someone pick me up before security and take through the service tunnels. All the employers did this sort of thing. The FBI checks take anywhere from 7 to 14 days to come through and most employers cant be short staffed that long.

As a cleaning/maintenance person I was left alone in the back of restaurants and offices on the runway platforms with dangerous tools, chemicals and equipment. I was taught which entryways required badges and which ones did not and which ones had people watching the cameras. Top it off with the fact I'm brown, have a lot of facial hair and wear a bandanna on my head.

Gas Chromatography - Mass Spectroscopy is a pretty advanced technique right now. Make a person walk through an enclosure, analyze against known explosives, and you can have both security and privacy simultaneously. It's expensive, but at $230,000 a pop, these scanners ain't cheap either.

That is a very expensive dog replacements. Get a dog, they do the same but cheaper.

Your anecdote leads me to think that the primary reason more people don't protest the TSA in situ is that everybody is afraid to be hassled and miss their flights.

Exactly. That's why I always try to go through these idiotic imaging scanners if possible, beacuse if I take out everything from my pockets (+belt, etc.) then it's much faster to get through. Especially since sometimes the classical detector gates are set to be too sensitive or something (e.g. beeping for some buttons on shorts, zipper lock on jeans, etc.), and then it takes extra time standing there plus patdowns to get through.

Almost all passangers go through whichever process silently, since nobody wants to be held up and taken as a criminal for some words that you accidentally drop in frustration. Plus the hassles of an eventual miss of a flight.

So they are trying to write software that will take the distinct 'naked' image of the person in the scanner and output it as a generic image instead so as to sort of de-personalise it?

Aren't the various app stores full of morphing and face changing software or others to change you into a cartoon version of yourself etc.? Can't any of these techniques be used to obfuscate the personal images people are concerned with. I'm sure there is more sophisticated software already out there that can do the job required.

I saw another expert on tv saying, and I'm paraphrasing, but all these scanners do is create a new choke point with a lot of people in an enclosed space. All a terrorist would have to do is detonate a bomb while in the line before even entering security. It would have the same effect on the industry as if they did it on a plane, shutting down the industry for a time while causing an almost equal number of casualties. That's also another reason why Israel has a speedier process boarding flights.

In most airports you can drive a vehicle right next to the terminal, which could be full of explosives and blow it up.

These machines are a waste of tax payer dollars pure and simple. They won't stop someone who is serious.

As a matter of principle, I always opt-out while flying. Regardless of the technology used, I'd rather undergo multiple monthly pat-downs than subject myself to being seen naked, or be exposed to various types of untested radiation.

While traveling home yesterday, I noted that the TSA official didn't do as thorough a job as usual - on my legs, he stopped halfway between my knee and crotch, and barley brushed the rest. After the pat-down, I requested to speak to the supervisor, and proceeded to lodge a complaint that the groping wasn't sufficient.

The supervisor looked startled (think deer-in-headlights), and quite confused. I may be the first passenger ever to complain that the TSA didn't touch their junk enough. I explained that if I was forced to undergo such security theater while traveling, they should at least do a proper job of it.

I pointed out that I could have been concealing a weapon between my legs -- for a minute, I though she was going to call the troops and have me dragged off to a cell. I quickly stated that I was not making a threat, just an observation on the slip-shod quaility of their procedures. Fortunately, she let me proceed to my delayed flight.

Personally, I'm against privacy-enhancing image processing. I'd rather have people concerned about government invasions of their privacy, than pretend it's not such a big deal to be virtually strip-seached because only a computer ever sees one's junk.

Kudos to you having the cajones to speak up.

Speaking of slipshod, I'm often annoyed when I go to an airport or parking garage and they have me pop the truck for security reasons. I'll often have a suitcase in the back. But they just look in the trunk, see the suitcase and then tell me to carry on.

I think they've got it all backwards myself. If the software could magnify the image, say by a factor of two in the right places, more people would be cool with it. I know personally if this was the case for me, I'd have no problem with the scanner at all. Heak, I'd be looking around smugly saying, "Yeah, that's right!".

Timothy B. Lee / Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times.